Name your city in MP

[Flavor Dave]

Does anyone remember the NCAA bball title game from '82? Late in the game, UNC up a point, Gtown had the ball. James Worthy looked at the Gtown player who had the ball (and who was panicking as time ran down), and clapped his hands in that age old signal "pass it here." The Gtown player did, and UNC won. In that circumstance, a valid tactic.

I once played a pickup game where a guy did the same thing. Since we weren't playing shirts and skins, and it was really hard to remember who was on your team, and who wasn't, I considered this an invalid tactic. It undermined what the game was about. It put this trick above the contesting of bball abilities.

I put changing city names in the same category. I know I've criticized many suggestions for improvements that are made for the sake of realism as being wrong headed. Realism don't matter, gameplay does. But this tactic is *BOTH* unrealistic and bad for gameplay. IMO, whether this should be allowed should come down to whether we believe a trick is available due to a programming bug or oversight, or whether it is intentional. That's why I don't build airfields on mountains to boost food production. It's an obvious mistake by MPS.

I will say, I could see allowing a player to change city names under the following: 1st, he must have different names for each city. Now, this won't prevent him from changing the name of his wonder city, and giving that name to a meaningless city built on a mountain. But both names have to be changed. 2nd, he must change city names during his 2 (or whatever) minutes. If that's what you want to do with your time, have at it.

Ming, how is this clever? I don't get that at all. If everyone does it, then who gains an advantage, and how is it clever? Clever is if you word a treaty with someone in such a way that you can screw him without breaking your word. Clever is getting an enemy to move his strategic reserve to one front with a feint, and then walloping him on the other side. Renaming isn't.

But, someone brought up a good point. If the community at large thinks it's a bogus trick, then neither Ming nor anyone will use it. B/c doing it will bring everyone's wrath upon your head.

I used to play a game called Diplomacy by e-mail. In this game, you send "press" to the other players to try to get them to do what you want. There were a vareity of press options. Some games, you were allowed to send press to just one player, in other games, all press had to be "broadcast." (Open to everyone.) In some games, you could send anonymous press, or fake press, in other games you couldn't.
You knew which kind of game it was before you signed up.

I think CivII will be the same. Some games will be set up with renaming allowed, or not. Bloodlust, or not. Raging, random, or villages only. Prince, deity, or prince with slow advance rate. And the "best" options will be the most popular games.

If that happens, I am quite sure that renaming disallowed will be more popular.

[Colon™]

Ming you've convinced me and you're right. MP will be about winning and nothing else, that's something I forgot.
If I want what I'm searching, I'll have to wait for civ3.
One more thing, my wife hates civ, could you give arguments like Ming, Xin Yu and Flave (Can I call you Flave ?) instead of just shouting things, you only irritate me with it and it doesn't change my opinion whatsoever. (on the contrary, it only makes me more convinced I'm right)
Appearantly you grab every opportunity to critisize my way of playing. (like in the multiplayer forum)

[My Wife Hates CIV]

how about a peace treaty Colon?!

[Orcus]

Ming, by all means, use every means you see fit to use to win the game. But keep in mind that there is in fact such a thing as civilized warfare. Nukes, biologicals, etc. have been "banned" in reality. Why? For the very simple reason that nobody wants them to get used on themselves. If you use these tactics, then you invite their use on you. I just happen to dislike this renaming of cities thing, that's all, personal opinion. I don't care what a city is called, I care about resorces and strategic location! If my armies are parked outside your city, renaming it is not going to do squat. I suspect that "conventions" are going to become a big part of MP games, like "no blank city names" or "dogpile on the treaty breaker". Feel free to employ any techniques you desire, as long as you realize that making other players annoyed will lead to a war on several fronts. Also, Colon and MyWifeHatesCiv, you guys need a Cease-Fire, not a peace treaty :-)

[Colon™]

OK, but I can't quarantee anything.
I write faster then I think.

[Flavor Dave]

My Wife Hates
CIV

posted 11-30-98 1:37 PM EDT Flavor Dave:

why would the world attack a CIV that changes city names?? It's more of a defensive *TACTIC* more than anything else.

---------

Notice that in my post, I wrote, "If the community at large thinks it's a bogus trick, then neither Ming nor anyone will use it. B/c doing it will bring everyone's wrath upon your head."

That's a big if. I wonder about the Manhattan Project in MP--will anyone build it? I mean, folks have been postulating the Crazy Man scenario--a civ that's weak late in the game just building nukes like mad and lobbing them around. Given that, a leading nation would be reluctant to build MP, to allow these weaklings to use nukes to give themselves disproportionate clout. And the weak civs won't be able to build it. Once they start, they'll get attacked.

But, I may be wrong. It might be the opposite--the strongest civ waits till he discovers laser, builds SDIs all over the place, MP, and blackmails all of the other players. We'll have to wait and see.

Same thing with the name changing. We don't really KNOW the effect. IMO, it's a cheap trick and will be frowned upon. But, it is not unknown for me to be in error;-)

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I still don't see it as dirty play. It's not a threat to anyone, it's not a weapon. It would be used for defense and to keep info secure (like where a wonder is being built).

I might also keep lines of units around my cities to keep out spies. True, a line could be easy to break - but you'd have to be ay war.

There's nothing dirty about protecting information (even from allies).

[Ming]

You are right Mr. Dave... If the strategy of leaving city names blank, or changing them on a regular basis, was considered "outlawed", I won't do it. But, I don't see that kind of support for or against it. So, it will indeed probably have to be agreed to up front how it's going to be played. And frankly, if everybody else doesn't want to do it, fine... it will save me from being confused.
As far as nukes go, a civ that is behind can build it in one turn if they have the needed number of freights just hanging around. That's the problem. We won't even get a turn warning that somebody is building it... it will just be there. Then the little jerk will probably try to ruin the game for everybody else, just because he can't win. NOW THAT'S A DIRTY TRICK in my book. Yes, it's within the rules, but it still stinks.
And as far as the leader building it after his SDI network is in place, I don't think so. His supremecy in military will disappear quick.. because everybody will be gunning for him. Until they produce a unit that can act as a mobile SDI (maybe a patriot missle battery, it only works some of the time, just like in real life) there will really be no advantage to the leader to give everybody else the chance to build them.

[LeMay]

If you're losing and want to ruin the game for everyone else, there's a much cheaper and simpler way, which is harder to counter and much harder to spot. Simply build factories and power plants (not hydro, solar, or nuclear) without recycling or mass transit, and let the pollution build up. I bet you could induce 2 or 3 global warmings before everyone figured out what was happening and decided to remove you from the face of the planet, and in the interim, everyone would be much, much worse off.
Your point about the MP is well-taken. If someone wants it to come into the game and that person has Nuclear Fission, it will come. Nothing to help it. I think Rocketry will be a must-have advance because if MP comes and you don't have it, your opposition is free to toast you and there's little you can do to respond. Once MP is in, it will be either MAD or global thermonuclear war. SDI will calm it down somewhat, but will give the defense a huge advantage because attacking armies and captured cities can both be nuked.
As for using the MP in a positive way, the only way I can think is pairing it with a fast spaceship. I.e. put a ship together in as few turns as possible by buying components, launch, build MP in a single turn, then start chucking nukes around to lower everyone else's productivity to a level where they can't successfully catch your ship. This would work best with SDI, to ensure that your capital can't be easily nuked and captured.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Players will have to make sure they have a good stockpile of nukes. Hit me and I'll hit you kinda thinking. If you don't have them - better allie with someone who does.

[Colon™]

It took (takes ?)MPS a long time before they finished MP. There's reason for that, I hope they took that time to think very well about it. Polution or global warming will likely occur much slower than in Civ2. Probably there also will be many changes in the rules.txt and generally. I think they realize that fleets are worth much since they can be nuked easily, probably the added something to prevent that (pollution on sea ?)
Discussions about MP are quite theoretical in general, cos we don't know how much has been changed.
Flave says (can I call you Flave ?) that it's not certain that the project will be build. I believe it will depend on which players there are in the game.
Is it full with agressive warmongers who like nukes, then it will be build. However is it filled with peaceniks...
All games will depend on the whones who play them so in many games agreements will be made before it starts, like changing names.

[Flavor Dave]

Anyone who has posted at least 5 times on the strategy thread may call me Flave. All others must call me Mr. Dave.

I still have doubts about MP, as long as the properties of nukes stay the same. I remember someone writing on the MP thread that he would launch a jihad against the builder of MP, and most posters agreed. If you're in a game with 5 civs left, would you risk building MP, if even 2 of them said they'd throw caution to the wind and attack you recklessly and ruthlessly?

[Chiswell]

In Civ2 you can change the names of the AI's cities. I hope this isn't posible in MP.


I think changing names of cities is ok. I'm not so sure about having cities with no names...

Changing the names of other people's cities would be pretty annoying. I hope people don't start naming my cities "you will lose" or something.

[Orcus]

I don't mind changing city names to something else unique. I just don't want the blank name or all-the-same name to happen, I think that would be more annoying than anything else. But, the way I see it, an enemy renaming one of my cities is OK, it's like a raspberry or something. There's a psychological advantage there, in provoking your enemy to attack before he's ready just to change his town back to Pi-Ramesses from Buttville or whatever.

[Xin Yu]

It seems that a lot of people don't like same name cities. How about different names, but the first 3 characters are the same? This has less confusion but still helps you hiding some information from enemies.

[gambler]

I didn't think my trick about city with blank name would generate such a long discussion.
I just liked to let you know this trick,
but I didn't mean to suggest to use it.
Just to warn you that it exists.

[Orcus]

gambler, it's like you built Manhattan Project or something, hey?

Xin Yu, how does first 3 letters technique confuse your enemy? I would think it would just confuse you, trying to figure out where your units came from? Here's a thought, what if you name a city "NONE"?

[IntgrSpin]

Anyone remember how "quickstarting" killed Civnet? I suspect city renaming will do the same.
We'll just have to have different types of games. We'll have our "win at all costs to reality" games, and the "lets have fun with the classical strategy" games. You'll find me in the latter.

[Orcus]

IntgrSpin, I'll see you there! (And clean the floor with your face, of course) Ah, I look forward to this. I like bragging arrogantly, it makes the other players enjoy it that much more when they pulverize me.

[Xin Yu]

Gambler: I personally don't think you have the credit. I posted the idea 5 days before you. Please check the 5th post of this thread.( It was dated November 20th, yours was November 25th. )

Orcus: If a spy checked your city and found some units supported by other cities, he could first attack the city which supports the units--after that city's occupied, the units disappear. However he can only figure out which city supports the units by the first three letters.

[LeMay]

IntgrSpin: What is this about "quickstarting" killing CivNet? I never actually played CivNet (Civ2 arrived too soon right after).

[IntgrSpin]

In Civnet, you could sell your palace right away for a lot of money. If you used that cash to buy settlers, you could have about eight cities before your opponents had three. Your tech then went like gangbusters to chivalry. If you tried to play against a quickstarter, you would find your coast flooded with knights. It was impossible to defend against it, and most people lost interest in playing (who wants to play a game that is over so quickly?).

What sort of dirty tricks would be banned on multiplayer? With reference to obtaining nukes before everyone else, that would completely screw everyone. Else, that is. All you'd have to do to capture any enemy city is nuke it, then send a tank in to take the city. Distance and ZoC don't matter, a transport/ paratrooper and spy can easily get around them. And hey presto, you have any city you want. The only thing you'd have to worry about is a violent retribution when they get the missiles themselves.

Oh, and b-t-w, for even for fun with renaming, use your spies to investigate enemy cities, and then rename them YOURSELF. Your human enemies might get quite confused and fussed by this. How many of you knew that???

[gambler]

Xin Yu,
You are right. I didn't notice your post. Please forgive me, I didn't mean to "steal" your idea.
Well, I think it's better I'm not the father of this idea. I have begun to feel like Fermi and Oppenheimer after Manhattan Project...

[Crustacian]

[quote]Gambler: I personally don't think you have the credit. I posted the idea 5 days before you. Please check the 5th post of this thread.( It was dated November 20th, yours was November 25th.)[quote/]

Regarding this kind of thing above I have long had some things to say.
Xin Yu is a respected and accomplished player, and I have valued your comments on this forum tho never had the pleasure of enjoying a game with you yet. So I mean only to take this subject as oppertunity to express myself, and in no way intend anything critical for Xin Yu, Gambler or anyone.
The first posting on this forum for a strategy can documentably be the first place to EXPRESS an idea, even if it has been used for years by many others who have never said so.
EACH of us has found some satisfaction in finding on our own something new and innovating that was not in the book of rules, or even to find a bug! Xin Yu has found so many that someone reccomended him to test games!
Many of us realized that for example when rushbuying something in a city with many shields, it was a waste and learned to shift to working trade squares to lessen this waste for that turn..It is now called "micromanaging" and has been expanded greatly, but was born from getting in a pinch and looking for stretching every possible fibre...just like racing to complete a wonder the sacrifices you make and details you tend to. Now it has a name, but before then it still worked!
Or in old Civ you could reactivate a settler over and over in same turn and turn swampland into grassland in 1 turn, and even railroad the ocean for more trade! (bug)
One guy adamately claimed to have been the originator of city "overlapping" strategy!
Not just the first to post the idea. He only used this for more production of military units, and a way to defend in duel 2x2x games! He could not comprehend that many others stumbled on to same idea on their own for other and the same reasons just like himself and perhaps much earlier, so first posting is not = to first concept. And no one will ever know who the first on concieve of something is.
Myself for example in those early days with no access to a forum of ideas, could not effectively work gold near early cities until irrigating and higher government alowed this without stagnating city growth. So I started to build temporary cities that only worked the gold or whatever untill my permanent cities could cover it and then disbanded the temp cities. See I did not want city square overlapment to minimize ultimate size of my cities. This was an early stage of developement of my strategies. Then meanwhile built caravans or units or more settlers untill city would be disbanded. Well guess what? My civ advanced WAAAY faster because of MORE reasons than just utilizing the gold sooner.
Because:
1)The temp cities were built sooner and had no coruption do to distance from capital.
2)More squares than intended were worked at a sooner time.
3)Extra settlers and unit production allowed quicker growth of permanent cities!
4)Defense against enemies was greater do to closer inter-city travel, which also spawned the keep a dip handy to buy back a fallen city instead of trying to keep them all packed with defenders and sapping shields.
It is great to have the first post on an item and it is indisputable in this way. But some one on a little Amiga 500 may have been doing it years or months before the post and never knew it had a name! We have all been their in our own way. The first post is very important on an idea and I have benifited alot from all your contributions. If you kept them to your self we would be left with only ideas our own minds come up with.
*Thank you all for your contributions to the game and its experience.
I hope to continue the same since playing online for less than one year and remember counting the days for seemingly years till a multyplayer version came out...it was Civ Net!! With the funny looking tanks and new wonder benifits! We had no local internet connection in our little town so my sons and I played hot seat and savored being able to at last play other humans. Remember Civ Net?? Now we have MP Gold and TOT.
And the Journey goes on...

------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus




[This message has been edited by Crustacian (edited November 05, 1999).]

[War4ever]

Crustacian..... very good points and well articulated.... i agree with you 100% and keep on civing... i will see you sunday night for our game


------------------
When you wake up and and are still alive and at war, that means you won the night before.

[Caesar the Great]

This subject is colorless. (there that helps) Now here is my two cents. Anything that will help you win is not only good for you but it is the only way to go. If I were to play lets say Ming, or Xin Yu or my wife hates CIV I would get my @$$ kicked. But if they exploited no trick or bug and I exploited ALL of them I might live to see the birth of Christ .
[This message has been edited by Caesar the Great (edited November 07, 1999).]

[Caesar the Great]

One more thing I would like to say. Just yesterday I was making a scenario and something happened to my cities.txt file. All cities were under the title of Aztecs. (I was playing around with rules.txt) So when I tried making the scenario all cities names were blank except for the Aztecs (who were in the scenario), so I decided to play a game (on Diety of course) and the comp was really screwed up. Barbarians wouldn't take cities only attack units (but not inside cities) the AI players wouldn't negotiate but somehow I always had alliances or treaties with them. The weirdest of all I built the Collossus (for a science city) and its affects spread into ALL my cities. Can someone tell me what was going on. Has anyone actually tried naming all their cities the same name or not naming them at all. Thanks again, just my third cent. Now I'm poor

[Cromwell]

AH, the controversy! I DO miss Civ2 so! LOL Put me in the camp of those who would feel a strong urge to attack the "uni-city" trickster. Of course this urge could be overcome if the benefits were great enough.

PS WIth a game of many bugs, cheats, and loopholes--as Civ2 is-- I DO NOT believe that anything you can do, you should feel free to try.

PPS Hey MWHC and other "warriors", ever thought of a "no bribery" or "no diplo/spy" 2x2 game. Double movement units and no diplos to defend against. Seems like it would be one HECK of a great war game! What do you think?

Cromwell